Learning Outcomes
After studying this article, you will be able to explain the nature and purpose of judicial review, identify its supervisory function over public bodies, and distinguish the main grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. You will also be able to outline the role of judicial review in upholding the rule of law and describe its importance for public accountability, as required for the SQE1 exam.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the nature and purpose of judicial review as a core part of public law. Focus your revision on:
- the supervisory role of judicial review over public authorities
- the distinction between public law and private law remedies
- the main grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety
- the constitutional significance of judicial review in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability of public bodies
- the discretionary nature of judicial review remedies
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
- What is the primary function of judicial review in relation to public authorities?
- Which three main grounds can be used to challenge a public authority’s decision by judicial review?
- Does judicial review allow the court to substitute its own decision for that of the public body?
- What is the difference between judicial review and an appeal on the merits?
- Why is judicial review considered essential for the rule of law?
Introduction
Judicial review is a legal process that allows courts to supervise the actions and decisions of public authorities. Its main purpose is to ensure that public bodies act within the limits of their legal powers and follow fair procedures. Judicial review is an essential part of public law, providing a mechanism to challenge unlawful, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair decisions by government departments, local authorities, and other public bodies.
Key Term: judicial review Judicial review is a court procedure that enables individuals to challenge the lawfulness of decisions, actions, or omissions by public authorities.
The Supervisory Role of Judicial Review
Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. Courts do not ask whether the public body made the “best” or “correct” decision. Instead, they examine whether the decision was made lawfully, rationally, and fairly. This supervisory function ensures that public authorities act within their legal boundaries and respect the rights of individuals.
Key Term: supervisory jurisdiction The supervisory jurisdiction of the court refers to its power to oversee and control the legality of actions by public bodies, rather than to substitute its own decision.
The Purpose of Judicial Review
Judicial review serves several important purposes:
- Upholding the rule of law: Ensures that public authorities act according to law and do not exceed or abuse their powers.
- Ensuring accountability: Holds public bodies answerable for their decisions and actions.
- Protecting individual rights: Provides a remedy where a person is affected by an unlawful or unfair public decision.
- Promoting good administration: Encourages consistency, transparency, and fairness in public decision-making.
Worked Example 1.1
A local council introduces a new policy restricting access to a public park, but the policy is not authorised by any statute or regulation. A resident is affected and wishes to challenge the policy.
Answer: The resident may seek judicial review on the ground that the council acted without legal authority (illegality). The court will not consider whether the policy is sensible, but whether the council had the power to introduce it.
Grounds for Judicial Review
The courts recognise three main grounds for judicial review:
Illegality
A decision is unlawful if the public authority acts outside its legal powers, misinterprets the law, or uses its powers for an improper purpose.
Key Term: illegality Illegality means a public body has acted outside the scope of its legal powers or failed to comply with the law.
Key Term: ultra vires Ultra vires means “beyond the powers”—when a public authority acts outside the limits set by law.
Irrationality
A decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made it. This is sometimes called “Wednesbury unreasonableness.”
Key Term: irrationality Irrationality refers to a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have made it.
Key Term: Wednesbury unreasonableness Wednesbury unreasonableness is a standard for irrationality: a decision is unlawful if it is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”
Procedural Impropriety
A decision is procedurally improper if the public authority fails to follow fair procedures, breaches the rules of natural justice, or does not comply with statutory requirements.
Key Term: procedural impropriety Procedural impropriety means a public body has failed to follow fair procedures or comply with legal requirements in making its decision.
Key Term: natural justice Natural justice refers to the basic principles of fairness in legal proceedings, including the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
Worked Example 1.2
A government agency refuses an application for a licence without giving the applicant an opportunity to present their case or reasons for refusal.
Answer: The applicant may seek judicial review for procedural impropriety, as the agency failed to provide a fair hearing (a breach of natural justice).
The Discretionary Nature of Judicial Review
Remedies in judicial review are discretionary. Even if a court finds that a public body acted unlawfully, it may decide not to grant a remedy if, for example, the error made no difference to the outcome or there are overriding public interest reasons.
Key Term: discretionary remedy A discretionary remedy is a court-ordered outcome (such as quashing a decision) that the court may grant or refuse, depending on the circumstances.
Judicial Review and the Rule of Law
Judicial review is essential for maintaining the rule of law. It ensures that public authorities cannot act arbitrarily and that individuals have a legal avenue to challenge unlawful or unfair decisions. By holding public bodies to account, judicial review supports the separation of powers and protects constitutional values.
Worked Example 1.3
A central government department introduces a new benefit scheme but applies eligibility criteria that are not authorised by the enabling legislation. An affected individual challenges the criteria.
Answer: The individual may seek judicial review on the ground of illegality. The court will consider whether the department acted within the powers granted by Parliament.
The Limits of Judicial Review
Judicial review is limited to public law matters. It does not apply to private disputes or to decisions made by private individuals or companies. Claims must be brought promptly, usually within three months of the decision.
Exam Warning
Judicial review is not a way to appeal the merits of a decision. The court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the public body unless the decision is unlawful, irrational, or procedurally improper.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Judicial review is a court process for supervising the legality of decisions by public authorities.
- Its purpose is to uphold the rule of law, ensure accountability, and protect individual rights.
- The main grounds for judicial review are illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety.
- Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits; it focuses on the lawfulness and fairness of the decision-making process.
- Remedies in judicial review are discretionary and may include quashing orders, prohibiting orders, or mandatory orders.
- Judicial review claims must be brought promptly, usually within three months.
Key Terms and Concepts
- judicial review
- supervisory jurisdiction
- illegality
- ultra vires
- irrationality
- Wednesbury unreasonableness
- procedural impropriety
- natural justice
- discretionary remedy
